Quote:
Originally Posted by lbird
...
About political capital, with such a low civic election turnout, a few people mad at you for allowing a high density development on their block can vote you out. Also, if the people in your ward don't want something, isn't it your duty to follow those wishes?
...
|
O.k., that’s what I figured. The thing is that we elect
leaders, not pollsters. For me that means that council's job is to do more than follow the will of the majority on every issue. If that were the goal, then the computer technology exists which could decide every issue based on a poll, bypassing the need for elected officials entirely. As I see it, I elect a representative based on their general perspective and their apparent judgement. After that, I expect them to use the extra time and research capacity that my taxes fund (including but not limited to public opinion polls) to inform themselves and make decisions based on good judgement, and research. Let’s face it, most of us are woefully uninformed about many issues, and really should not have as much a say as those who are more informed. Our representatives have the luxury of time and resources to become better informed than the vast majority of us. It is a leader’s job to sort through the available information and make the decisions they believe are best, not the ones that will get them re-elected. It is also their job to share with the public, their reasoning, hopefully thereby shifting opinion. As strong as my opinions are, I am open to changing them, if the alternative can be well reasoned. I am also willing to capitulate on some issues, if someone can explain to me why that is important (beyond "I need to get re-elected").
Big advances generally happen because of the actions and words of leaders, which then shift public opinion, and not the other way around. Obama was not elected because he has great policies (he hasn't mentioned a lot of those), but because people believe he has great ideas and that he will translate these into great policy (also because his predecessor has managed to screw up so badly - note GWB did not make unpopular decisions, he made bad ones).
As for cars and backyards, I agree that this is what most people want...
now. However, there is a chicken and egg problem which perpetuates this feeling, i.e. the city is designed for cars and backyards, with a dearth of alternative transportation options, bigger than necessary distances between amenities and residences, not enough public amenities (making ones own yard more appealing). If leaders have the nerve to shift public funding from cars and yards, then the alternatives become more appealing. Are people in Vancouver fundamentally different than people in Saskatoon? I don't think so, they have just been exposed to the alternative (higher density, less cars, less private space) and many have embraced it. Most people here have never been exposed to anything but sprawling suburban cities. Years ago, people here thought living downtown was only for the elderly and indigent. When council decided to advantage downtown residential development, such development started to occur and lo and behold people now realize that it is kind of cool to live downtown. This wouldn't have happened (or would have happened much more slowly) without leadership.
Such decisions can be instituted gradually and in a way so as to increase public buy in. I think this is happening (albeit very slowly) with transit (i.e. improved service). However, the next step is to have people gradually assume the full cost of their individual decisions, so that they can make truly rational decisions (e.g. toll roads), increased taxes for communities that require greater road maintenance (e.g. suburbs).
It is obvious that cities like Edmonton and Calgary have come to realize that the model of continually adding suburbs to accommodate most new residents is not working - they are frantically working to increase density. The cost in financial and "political capital" is much higher than if these moves had been made years ago. Why don't we learn from that? BTW, the population density of Saskatoon is lower than that of Calgary. We get away with it now, because we are still relatively small, but not forever.
With regard to newer neighbourhoods, they are better, but not good enough, the biggest flaw, as we have discussed here is that they are separated from each other by roads which are nearly impassable by foot or cycle, unless you are willing to go many blocks out of your way. Likewise, while the services are often geographically centralized, access by foot, cycle or transit is grossly inconvenient. People who drive all the time are not even aware of this. What from a car looks like a good pedestrian or bike route is often terrible from the vantage point of a pedestrian or rider. As just one example, a bike lane at the side of the road looks great, but if it is full of potholes or parked cars it is worse than nothing because it is very treacherous to ride a bike through a pothole or have to swerve into traffic to avoid it. These potholes are often not visible from a car.
I would suggest that people who do this planning (and make the relevant decisions i.e. leaders) should be people who use those forms of transportation regularly or at least should consult heavily with such people. A person who rides their bike for leisure on the weekend, ahs no idea what a bike commuter goes through.
Sorry if this is off topic, but really, we only have so many buildings to talk about anyway
Prev
Linear Mode
